Debates of Oct. 27th, 2025

Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a clear example of the contempt toward the House of Commons that I mentioned earlier. For the Liberals, committees are just a way to keep people busy. They use them to get rid of issues they do not want to discuss in the House. However, it is important to discuss these issues in the people's place and not just in committees, whose reports just gather dust anyway, as we all know Take, for example, the unanimous report we sent to the House on the dangers of breast implants. I managed to get 10 unanimous recommendations adopted, and the government is letting the report sit on a shelf. That is why we want to have certain debates in front of all Canadians. It is a matter of transparency.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan, The Economy; the hon. member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, The Economy; the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona, Labour.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to the amendment put forward by the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, which I proudly seconded, calling on the CEO of Brookfield, as well as the Clerk of the Privy Council and the Prime Minister's chief of staff, to come before the ethics committee and answer questions as we undertake our review of the Conflict of Interest Act.

Frankly, the Liberals have a lot to answer for with respect to the Prime Minister's multitude of conflicts of interest, which he continues to hide from Canadians, such as his use of offshore tax havens while he was the chair of Brookfield to avoid paying taxes in Canada. So much for Mr. Captain Canada, Mr. Elbows Up. They also have a lot to answer for about the completely inadequate so-called ethics screen that has been set up to supposedly keep the Prime Minister from being involved in making decisions on matters in which he has conflicts of interest.

Let me say that when it comes to the Prime Minister's conflicts of interest, it is official: He is the most-conflicted Prime Minister in Canadian history. Never have we had a Prime Minister with so many conflicts of interest: more than 500 conflicts of interest and an ethics screen comprising 103 conflicts.

I will be splitting my time with the member for Montmorency—Charlevoix.

Despite 500 conflicts and the vast and unprecedented nature of the situation, this merely scratches the surface of what the Prime Minister's potential conflicts of interest are. That is because we learned from his ethics disclosure that he is entitled to receive carried interest payments worth tens of millions of dollars in respect of the performance of three major clean-tech funds he set up while he was the chair of Brookfield.

The Prime Minister set up the $15-billion global transition fund; the second global transition fund, at $10 billion; and the catalytic transition fund. He co-led efforts to draw investments into those funds; he picked the companies. He knows what the holdings of those funds are. Why is that relevant? It is because he knows specific public policy decisions that may impact the performance of those funds, which in turn directly relates to his future bonus pay worth potentially tens of millions of dollars.

Canadians deserve to know what the holdings of these funds are. They deserve to know what companies the Prime Minister hand-picked. They deserve to know that he is not involved in making decisions that would impact these funds, which in turn would determine the amount he reaps in the way of future bonus pay.

The Prime Minister has had an opportunity to come clean and tell us what is in the funds, but he has refused to do so. As a consequence, we have a Prime Minister who, to put it generously, may be complying with the letter of the Conflict of Interest Act but is certainly not complying with the spirit of the Conflict of Interest Act, in the face of these many potential hidden conflicts of interest.

Frankly, the Prime Minister has a lot to answer for based upon his activities at Brookfield. I alluded to the three clean-energy funds that the Prime Minister set up. Where did he set up the global transition fund? Oh, it was not in Canada but in Bermuda. How about the second global transition fund? It was not in Canada; the Prime Minister registered it in Bermuda. The catalytic transition fund is not in Canada. How about the Cayman Islands? All are in offshore tax haven jurisdictions.

Last week at committee, we learned about the extent of Brookfield's use of offshore tax havens. In fact, analysis done by Canadians for Tax Fairness revealed that of Canada's 123 largest corporations, Brookfield is the largest tax dodger; there was the largest tax gap by Brookfield, based upon what Brookfield actually paid in taxes versus what Brookfield should have paid had the statutory tax rate been applied, because of Brookfield's use of offshore tax havens that the Prime Minister actively used and took advantage of while he was chair of Brookfield.

How much was it in the way of tax avoidance that Brookfield, I guess to some degree, succeeded in taking of advantage of? It was $6.5 billion of tax dodging in just five years.

The Prime Minister said he was coming to stand up and rescue this country at a time of crisis, but when we look at the actions of the Prime Minister, we see time and again that his words do not match his deeds. He was very happy to set up major funds, some of the world's largest clean-energy funds, in offshore tax havens. He was very content to hide behind loopholes in the Conflict of Interest Act to not disclose his hidden conflicts. Of course, we know that he was also very happy to move Brookfield out of Canada to New York City months before he ran for leadership of the Liberal Party.

Then there is the so-called ethics screen. Who administers the ethics screen? It is none other than the Prime Minister's chief of staff and the Clerk of the Privy Council, both of whom answer to the Prime Minister. They are arguably in a blatant conflict of interest in overseeing that screen. Not only that, but there are no checks and balances to see that the screen is being used as intended to keep the Prime Minister away from making decisions in which he would have a conflict of interest. There is no reporting mechanism, for example.

We are really left to having to trust the Prime Minister's chief of staff and the Clerk of the Privy Council who, by the way, even if they were doing their best, which they may be, to shield the Prime Minister from these types of decisions, are subject to an ambiguous proportionality standard that raises other questions about the effectiveness of the ethics screen.

For all of these reasons, this amendment could not be more timely. We need to hear from the Prime Minister's chief of staff and from the clerk with respect to the ethics screen, and we need to hear from the CEO of Brookfield about the many serious ethical questions surrounding the—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

We must go to questions and comments.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, as I have indicated, it really is amazing how the Conservatives have reversed their whole thinking on the issue. Former prime minister Stephen Harper put into place the rules. The current Prime Minister is following the rules. One of the biggest defenders of the blind trust was none other than the current leader of the Conservative party.

If they want to talk about a chief of staff, we can think of Nigel Wright, who came in from the private sector, and the wealth he had while being the chief of staff for former prime minister Stephen Harper. At the time, who was defending him? It was the current leader of the Conservative Party. The hypocrisy just oozes out as a direct result of the Conservative Party's wanting to attack the character of the Prime Minister. I find that disgraceful.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Madam Speaker, what good is a blind trust in the face of carried interest payments and future bonus pay, in the amount of tens of billions of dollars, that the Prime Minister could be entitled to? A blind trust does nothing to deal with that. It is one example of many of the loopholes that exist in the complete inadequacy of the Prime Minister's simply saying, “I have set up a blind trust, and by the way, I also have an ethics screen that is being administered by my chief of staff, who answers to me.” It is not good enough.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague and thank him for his speech.

He talked about Brookfield subsidiaries in tax havens. I want to remind the House that there are five that are active in Canada that received the wage subsidy during the pandemic at the same time as they were not paying taxes in Canada because they were registered in tax havens. That is unacceptable.

This is my question for my colleague. The Prime Minister makes a decision that will enrich him personally, for example scrapping the tax on digital services imposed on web giants, saying that this will enable an agreement to be reached with the U.S. government before July 21. Obviously, that did not happen. What can be done to ensure that the public does not wonder whether he did this to enrich himself personally, knowing that there are GAFAM shares in his blind trust? What can be done to regulate this?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Madam Speaker, what is fundamentally lacking is any level of transparency on the part of the Prime Minister. We have a Prime Minister who has not revealed all of his conflicts. That is a problem because Canadians cannot, therefore, be assured that he is, in fact, avoiding conflicts of interest.

Second, we have an ethics screen that is based entirely on trust. There is no reporting and no understanding of when it is being triggered or if it is being triggered. At the very least, as a starting point, we need transparency from the Prime Minister. Some of the transparency does not require amendments to the act. It just requires the Prime Minister's staff to step forward and come clean.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Madam Speaker, like me, my colleague was elected 10 years ago, and I want to congratulate him on his fourth mandate in a row.

As a veteran parliamentarian, he has seen many cases of malversation from the Liberal Party. We remember Jody Wilson-Raybould when the former prime minister put his two hands into the justice system. That was a kind of corruption. Does the member think that what we are seeing right now with Prime Minister is exactly at the same level?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Madam Speaker, I guess the more things change, the more things stay the same. That is what I would say.

We had a former prime minister who had serious issues with complying with the Conflict of Interest Act, and we have a new Prime Minister, the current Prime Minister, who has an unprecedented number of conflicts of interest and is not acting in accordance with, at the very least, the spirit of the act and may not be fully complying with the act. We do not know because of the lack of transparency surrounding the Prime Minister's dealings.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, the laws that we pass in Parliament govern our society, including the Conflict of Interest Act. We have specific rules to oversee such conflicts, along with disclosure mechanisms, compliance measures and the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. The committee's mission is essential, and we must carry it out scrupulously, not complacently, to ensure that the state functions as it should.

Today, above and beyond legislation and procedures, we need to regain the public's trust. I sincerely believe that democracy is in crisis. Our institutions, the very foundations of our democracy, are being challenged every day. What always strikes me when I travel from one region to another is that a growing number of people thank me for coming to visit them, saying it is so kind of me. They treat us like an elite class. They call us government people. The people think we are completely out of touch, that we become a class of our own as soon as we become politicians. I think that is a serious mistake.

Many of my friends ask me questions when they see me. We spend our weekdays here in Parliament but go back to our communities on weekends. People tell me it is great that I am in Parliament. I always tell them that an MP's main purpose is to serve the people. We are here to serve. We are not here to rule the world; we are here to represent our constituents. We are not here to impose our will; we are here to understand. Regardless of the level of government, whether federal, provincial or municipal, elected officials are first and foremost here to serve the people.

I would like to take a few seconds to congratulate everyone running in the Quebec municipal elections. It is truly admirable to serve the public, and I believe it is important to remember that we are here for them. Democracy is not a perfect system, but it is a system that allows every citizen, if they so desire, to become informed, which is the first step. It also allows them to vote, which we all hope they will do, and to run for office, if they have convictions and want to make a difference. This means putting their face on a poster, standing up for their beliefs and getting elected.

The current situation is rather worrisome. People are completely disillusioned. Today, a journalist invited to appear before the committee said that we are in the midst of a democratic crisis. He sees this on a daily basis when he talks to people. No one seems to believe in democracy anymore. People often lose confidence because of scandals. It seems as though politicians are willing to try every trick in the book to slip through the cracks in the system.

This democratic crisis is very important. We must remember that the first thing to do in any crisis is to fix as many things as possible. The first step is to correct as much as possible to ensure that nothing can possibly be overlooked. The second thing to do relates to transparency. I am not the one who came up with this. All anyone needs to do is go to any university that teaches crisis management. They will say that the first thing to do is make as many corrections as possible and then demonstrate transparency. It is really important to correct the situation as much as possible and then regain the public's trust. That is exactly what the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics is for. Its mission is to ensure that politicians, regardless of their political affiliation, are accountable. The committee provides rigorous oversight to ensure that the interests of Canadians always come first.

I made an observation during recent committee meetings. We welcomed some exceptional guests: the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, the Commissioner of Lobbying, the Information Commissioner, as well as many journalists, researchers, and lawyers. They all came to speak to us. The commissioners, who are instruments of the state working within the system, have, without exception, said two things: First, they are underfunded, and second, they do not have enough power to make decisions and exercise control over the state. I find this compelling because it means that, although processes have been put in place, the commissioners are not being given enough power and funding to do their job.

Worse still, several told us that they often file access to information requests that are delayed or ignored by the government. They have to fight with the government to gain access to information that they should normally have access to, even though they are the regulators. The Information Commissioner has also told us that one-third of requests exceed the prescribed deadlines and that, in many cases, the documents are even destroyed. This does nothing to help the public's perception of our institutions. I truly believe that a lack of accountability is a factor here.

The lack of real consequences is another problem. That is something else we have heard. Commissioners do not have enough clout to enforce the rules. They tell us that it is hard to believe in the stringency of a system when those who violate a law such as the Conflict of Interest Act receive a maximum fine of $500. That is absurd. People have to pay $500 when they break the rules of a system that is supposed to represent the people, even though they could potentially influence important decisions and benefit to the tune of millions of dollars. That $500 seems like a pretty paltry sum to me. It is practically just an administrative formality, really. They get a slap on the wrist and carry on. That is why we see scandals happening year after year, government after government.

We heard this kind of testimony regularly. It was not always about a scandal, but it was about the fact that commissioners have a hard time accessing information and doing their job.

The current Prime Minister's conflict of interest is a rather unusual case. I think that we should treat it as a first, and any first requires some adjustments. I think it is important to recognize that because, for one of the first times in history, we have a prime minister with a rather unique background taking office at a very critical time.

The Prime Minister has a potential conflict of interest with regard to 109 companies that are part of the Brookfield fund, which owns more than 900 companies and is worth billions of dollars. That raises a question. For one of the first times in history, this number is significant. Is our structure able to effectively manage so much information? In committee, we were told that it would take a full-time team to review the 109 companies that are in a potential conflict of interest and to determine what the ramifications are. In the end, two people were assigned this task and they report directly to the Prime Minister.

I think that this is a decision that we, as a society, should question. We are often asked whether there is a challenge function and whether there might be the appearance of a conflict of interest. Without pointing any fingers or casting aspersions on anyone, I believe that we still need to make laws that focus on prevention rather than always looking for a cure after the fact. I often say that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure because that is my motto when it comes to health. I think that also applies to the public service as a whole and to all of our decision-makers.

The two highest ranking public servants, who work on more than just this, are the ones who have to decide, at a time, right now, when we desperately need to improve the country's economy. We have to act fast and meet needs. How quickly we manage this information hinges on two people. They are the ones who make the all decisions in potential conflict of interest cases. I think that is a mistake. We need to change that. This crisis of public trust is a product of these flawed mechanisms, ill-suited at best to the current reality. I think it is important that we make changes in this regard.

The Prime Minister holds the reins of a country whose democratic foundations have been shaken to the core. He recently travelled to New York and London to meet with people. The Information Commissioner told us that access to these records and information about who he met with, when, how and why was needed. Again, nothing has been done. I believe that this, too, erodes public trust.

I think we need to get back to what true ethics are all about. It is not about getting bogged down in minutiae. It is not about seizing on little details. It is not about trying to think like a lawyer and judge what a person has the right to do. Instead, we need to go back to the root of the word “ethos”, in other words, moral correctness. It is the right thing to do. I think we need to return to fundamental ethics, which means morality before strategy, transparency before political games.

To wrap up, I think we still need to ask ourselves some questions. Is our system adapted to the reality of a Prime Minister who comes from the world of international finance? Can we react fast enough? Can our institutions keep up with the current economic climate with a Prime Minister who wants to make very quick decisions that could benefit him? I want to reiterate that I said “could”. However, we have to be able to be sure of that. Do we need to review our practices because it is better to prevent than to cure?

I think it is very important that we analyze this thoroughly. The motion before the House today must be adopted so that we can get answers to our questions.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Madam Speaker, I wonder.

In the House of Commons, there are standing committees that cover diverse topics ranging from defence to official languages and natural resources. In each of these committees, members discuss important matters. There may be discussions on reports. Why was this debate reopened in the House of Commons today when we should be discussing Bill C‑3?

What is more, the opposition has what we call opposition days. If this issue was truly so important to my opposition colleagues, why did they not use a formal opposition day to debate it and hold a vote on it? I question the process.

At the end of his speech, my colleague mentioned that we need to try to avoid political games. I urge everyone to take seriously the various bills currently before the House of Commons, to be mindful of the time we have available, and to use it wisely.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is a very good question.

Making wise use of our time seems to me to be a clear national issue at the moment. It is a priority, and it is extremely important in order to represent the people. Our country is experiencing a crisis of democracy. We need to reassure those who no longer have faith in our institutions. They need to hear that we are taking their concerns and questions seriously. For example, are politicians really there for them or seeking to take advantage of the fact that the foundations of society are completely shaken? Are our neighbours to the south still our friends? We do not really know. I do not think this is a trivial or unimportant issue; it is an urgent and important issue.

That is what we are doing today.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have been listening to the questions for the last while.

At one point, the Liberals asked what changed. The law has been the same for a while and everything was fine. What changed? I feel like asking my colleague whether a virus is unfortunately spreading among our colleagues across the way, who all end up infected.

I tend to agree with him that not much has changed. We had ethical problems with the former Liberal prime minister and we have new ethical problems with the new Liberal Prime Minister. Needless to say, they are not the same problems, but they are always ethical. I fear that a virus is spreading in the House of Commons.

Does my colleague share my fear, or does he think that we are safe from this virus on this side of the House?

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, on this side of the House, our job is certainly to ensure that the virus does not spread.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, for one of the first times in history, we are looking at the current Prime Minister's assets and interests. The current situation is not forcing our country's economic development, but I think we need to do it.

This morning, we heard testimony from the former clerk of the Privy Council. He told us that a career in politics never lasts long. This experienced person told us that politicians never know how long their career will last. It might last a year, two years, four years, maybe eight years, sometimes 10 years. No one really knows, but one thing is certain: Politics is not usually a career that lasts 40 or 50 years.

Now we are faced with someone who might be thinking about his life after politics while he is leading a country and holding the reins of its national economy. We have to wonder whether that individual is there for the right reasons, and we need to put mechanisms in place to ensure that he is there for the right reasons.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague talked about a crisis of trust in British Columbia. In British Columbia, local governments are being pushed by the province to create new conflict of interest rules, and they are adapting to a new reality within our institutions and reviewing processes.

If they have to do this at a local level, why do you think the Liberals are against reviewing conflicts of interest at the federal level?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I will remind the hon. member that I do not think anything when I am sitting in this chair. Questions have to be put through me.

The hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, that just underscores something of paramount importance.

If we have reached the point where people are asking these questions in the provinces, I think it is extremely important that we ask them at the federal level. This further supports my argument that democracy is currently under threat. It is high time that our policies served to reassure the public. We need to overcorrect and prioritize transparency.

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

Madam Speaker, as a long-time fan of yours, I know you are a deeply thinking person, and I always appreciate the opportunity to hear your thoughts on a range of issues. With that compliment, I am hoping for all of the graces afforded to parliamentarians in this great chamber.

I am thankful for the opportunity to rise today. I will be splitting my time with my dear friend, the hon. member of Parliament for Calgary Crowfoot.

The debate today is a central one to the integrity of the nature of democracy in our country. We need to ask ourselves three principal questions. The first is why this motion is being debated today. The second is what concerns the Liberals have when it comes to opening up transparency on the Prime Minister's conflicts of interest. The third is whether the Prime Minister thinks that somehow he might be above the rule of law in this land, always knows best, can always make the right decision and does not need to subject himself to the standards of transparency that the great people of Calgary Heritage and all Canadians deserve him to be held to.

Let me start with a little reflection on why Canadians deserve answers with respect to the integrity and transparency of their government.

Canadians deserve to understand exactly what the Prime Minister's conflicts of interest are. They deserve to know that the loopholes in the Conflict of Interest Act are not being used to make politicians richer. That is why we are calling for the Clerk of the Privy Council and the chief of staff to the Prime Minister to appear before committee. It would be an opportunity for them, not to be part of some kind of witch hunt about the Prime Minister's individual conduct, but for parliamentarians and all Canadians to understand clearly what the perils might be in the screen they have set up.

Both the Clerk of the Privy Council and the Prime Minister's chief of staff are unique. As government and public officials, they are administrators of the Prime Minister's conflict of interest screen. With the opportunity to appear before committee, people deserve to know how the screen is being applied, when it is being applied and what loopholes need to be closed to protect the public interest.

This is a central issue to how our government conducts itself on behalf of the taxpayer every single day. The fact that it is even a question now was born specifically out of the Prime Minister's commercial conduct in the past.

When the Prime Minister set up his so-called blind trust, he knew exactly what went into it, so consider the likelihood that those assets have changed from the start of the trust to what it is now, seven months into his prime ministership and only a few months after he surrendered them to a blind trust. Members will remember that he has been reluctant, since being sworn in as Prime Minister after a general election campaign, to show transparency. There has been a reluctance from the very beginning. That does not build confidence and trust with the people of Canada at a time when people are very anxious about government abuse and waste in spending.

Specific to this, the Prime Minister is a very impressive business person, and I say that comfortably in this chamber. He coled efforts to raise billions of dollars in capital. He is entitled to future carried interest payments based on the performance of the fund he set up. At his previous firm, he set up a massive fund and raised billions of dollars in which he has a personal stake, but the Canadian public has no idea what is actually in that fund. Members will understand the conflict issues that the opposition is raising in good faith with the government.

The screen set up by the Ethics Commissioner does not require disclosure when the Prime Minister recuses himself when dealing with these types of issues. That is an intolerable loophole. It is an opportunity for a massive abuse of taxpayer money and massive abuse of the public trust. We are talking about a country that the Prime Minister himself has defined as one in a huge crisis. Major decisions need to be made with blinding speed, but with that must come brilliant transparency to ensure that the Prime Minister and his government are not setting themselves up to be on the take later.

This is not a different kind of government, a government worthy of trust. We are now into over 10 years of it, and historically the Liberal Party has not exactly been known as the model for public trust and public confidence with public finances. This speak to a pattern of Liberal corruption.

Canadians have seen this Liberal movie many times before. They saw it with former prime minister Justin Trudeau, who violated four provisions of the Conflict of Interest Act by accepting a vacation on a private island, of all things. They saw it in the SNC-Lavalin scandal, where the former prime minister abused his power and forayed into the integrity of public prosecutions to protect his friends and a company that has been revealed to be mired in scandal and corruption around the world, building prisons for dictators in Middle Eastern jurisdictions. We saw a prime minister who abused the idea of charitable work for our young people through the WE Charity scandal. That was supposed to be good in this country, but he engorged and enriched himself and his family through it. We saw a prime minister who stood by the arrive scam app, an app that was designed to try to keep Canadians safe, and who spent tens of millions in development on phony companies and phony front organizations.

That is the just the tip of the iceberg. This is a record of abuse that stretches into the tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of dollars. Massive spending was required in the context of an international crisis, but so much of that money is completely unaccounted for. It is not exactly a record of trust.

Now we have a Prime Minister who could cash in on nearly 100 conflicts of interest, according to statistics expert Duff Conacher of Democracy Watch, who appeared before committee. Ninety-nine per cent of the decisions the Prime Minister makes are not subject to conflict laws. The Prime Minister told Canadians that they needed to sacrifice while he financially benefits from offshore tax havens. This is not the kind of confidence that Canadians expect of their government. It is not the kind of trust that we would expect to see built over the months the Prime Minister has had, despite the support of Conservatives, to move major projects forward.

These ethical failures of the Prime Minister and his government are already an opportunity to investigate a bit more how he views ethics and integrity. Internationally, there has been the beginning of a disaster. We have seen the government and the Prime Minister dispense with something as simple as the rule of law and basic human dignity when it comes to standing with the only democracy in the Middle East, Israel, instead siding with terror organizations and rewarding them with statehood. That is one of the highest failures of ethical standards and moral judgment.

The Prime Minister is now ensconced in not just one trade war but two with the United States, which were uncalled for and require Canada to stand strong and united, but he is not turning to resolving a deal with the United States. Instead, he is creating strategic partnerships with the world's biggest rivals in Beijing. The People's Republic of China does not deserve a strategic partnership with Canada. It deserves strategic concern on a range of issues that touch on natural resources, data, technology and the economic growth of our country. For all of these issues, the Prime Minister will be making massive infrastructure decisions with respect to the future of our country, and he, himself, may be personally incentivized in them.

Finally, there is the unleashing of our resources. The Prime Minister is in Asia this week without a single deal to offer the Asian markets that have lined up for our resources. They want to end their reliance on dirty dictator energy. They want to partner with Canada on our resources, the most cleanly cultivated in the entire world with the most stable market for long-term partnerships. However, he did not arrive in Asia for the purpose of doing this, but in anticipation of a meeting with the leadership of Beijing to try to deepen a deal with bad actors.

The decisions made when the Prime Minister looks at the ethics of our country and the screens he sets up, not just to incentivize himself, are for the national interests of our country, the prosperity of our people and, indeed, the security of our western security architecture. That is why this is important.

If this is truly a new government, as the exact same Liberals claim, then they should prove it, flip the page on Liberal corruption and be transparent with Canadians. Should they not want to close these loopholes? Should they not want our people to know that decisions are made in the public's best interest, not in the partisan interests of the Prime Minister or for his personal enrichment?

With that, I will conclude my comments. I hope this Parliament and this chamber pass the amendment we proposed today.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing, and I say that representing the people of Winnipeg North, that the Conservatives have made the decision to start a filibuster, as opposed to dealing with the real issues that Canadians are concerned about, whether it is Bill C-3, bail reform, securing the borders or many other things.

These are issues the standing committee could continue to deal with. After all, the Conservative and Bloc alliance could dictate what is studied at committee. However, rather than doing this in a responsible, they are on the floor today in a sincere attempt to continue the character assassination of the Prime Minister. I find that disgusting. The Prime Minister is abiding by the laws that were put in place by Stephen Harper. It is very disrespectful to Canadians.

I am wondering if the member—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Calgary Heritage.

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would perhaps suggest that the hon. member listen to my remarks because I complimented the Prime Minister on his past. I made certain that I not make this about his character, but rather, the need for his decisions to provide the public with transparency.

The Prime Minister has not been embracing the concept of transparency or sunlight when it comes to his personal finances. Since the day he was elected Liberal leader, ran in the election and was sworn in as Prime Minister, only in the aftermath of the election did he provide an opportunity to understand exactly what his personal financial interests are. Public service is a high calling. It is an opportunity for all of us to sacrifice for the benefit of our country by offering transparency so we can build the trust that Canadians need.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of the debate, the government and its representatives in the House have been saying that it would be much more important to discuss Bill C‑3, which is not being passed quickly enough.

First, I want to remind members that if the government did not try to undo the work that was done in committee, things could move forward much faster. Second, can my colleague tell us why it is important to talk about ethics, about the rules that must be reviewed every five years, and about the fact that this can be done in the House rather than in committee?

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the government has had the support of opposition parties on a series of priorities. If the government wanted to provide energy corridors to unlock this country's enormous potential, it could decide to table the bills and do so immediately. If the government was serious about bail reform, as the member indicated, the government could have tabled a bill in the first week back in Parliament and got the job done, saving thousands of Canadians from the crime and chaos that affect them on the streets. If the government was serious about transparency and openness, it could have done this from the very beginning by making decisions that would not cast a cloud over every major decision it is making from this point forward.

The government has not shown an honest partnership with opposition parties in trying to make progress for the people and succeed as a democracy. The government has, instead, offered up barriers and bait-and-switch games legislatively. In committees, government members slow down the opportunity to hold people accountable by pursuing transparency and understanding the model of how they do so today.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke about the Liberal Party's track record. He did not have enough time to list all of the transgressions of our ethics laws that took place in the last Parliament. It goes even deeper because the Federal Accountability Act of the previous Conservative government was brought in to deal with the corruption of the government before that.

Would the member comment on the extent to which the Liberal Party, through a succession of prime ministers, has shown itself as an institution to be ethically compromised?